TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8-29-17 · 16 See, e.g., South Platte River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. §...

25
1 TECHNICAL APPENDIX Legal Analysis Shepherding Appropriated Water in Colorado For Colorado River Compact Security Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1 2. COLORADO LEGAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................................. 3 a. Existing Legal Authority to Shepherd Compact Security Water ............................................. 3 i. The State Engineer’s Compact Rule Power.............................................................................. 3 ii. Delivery of Storage Water. ..................................................................................................... 6 b. Beneficial Use ...................................................................................................................... 8 c. Out-of-State Use ................................................................................................................ 10 d. Who May Control and Manage the Water Right? ............................................................... 12 e. When May Colorado Water Be Used For Compact Security Purposes? ............................... 14 f. Change of Use Options ....................................................................................................... 15 g. Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 18 3. INTERSTATE ISSUES ................................................................................................... 18 4. LAKE POWELL ISSUES................................................................................................. 22 a. Lake Powell Operations...................................................................................................... 22 b. Considerations for Managing Compact Security Water. ..................................................... 23 5. CONCLUSION............................................................................................................. 25 1. INTRODUCTION Water shepherding involves moving specified quantities of already-appropriated water to a specific point downstream of its original place of use or storage without diminishment by other appropriators. 1 Shepherding typically includes both upstream and downstream components. Upstream administration requires maintaining the priority call of the 1 Water flowing naturally in streams and rivers is considered to be a public resource and is subject to diversion and use by those holding valid water rights. Colo. Const. art. XVI, § 5 (“The water of every natural stream, not heretofore appropriated within the state of Colorado, is hereby declared to be the property of the public, and the same is dedicated to the use of the people of the state, subject to appropriation as hereinafter provided.”); Colo. Const. art. XVI, § 6 (“The right to divert the unappropriated waters of any natural stream to beneficial uses shall never be denied.”) Appropriations of water place a claim on this public resource, enabling its diversion at a specified rate and its use for the specified purpose and in the specified manner according to the priority of the water right. Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 37-92-103(3), (4), (5), (12). Colorado statutes charge the State Engineer’s Office with administering the diversion and use of water according to rights adjudicated in Colorado water courts. Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 37-92-301(1), 37-92-501(1).

Transcript of TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8-29-17 · 16 See, e.g., South Platte River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. §...

Page 1: TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8-29-17 · 16 See, e.g., South Platte River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-65-101; Rio Grande River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-66-101. 17 See Simpson v. Bijou

1

TECHNICALAPPENDIXLegalAnalysis

ShepherdingAppropriatedWaterinColorado

ForColoradoRiverCompactSecurity

TableofContents

1. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................1

2. COLORADOLEGALFRAMEWORK.................................................................................3a. ExistingLegalAuthoritytoShepherdCompactSecurityWater.............................................3

i. TheStateEngineer’sCompactRulePower..............................................................................3ii. DeliveryofStorageWater......................................................................................................6

b. BeneficialUse......................................................................................................................8c. Out-of-StateUse................................................................................................................10d. WhoMayControlandManagetheWaterRight?...............................................................12e. WhenMayColoradoWaterBeUsedForCompactSecurityPurposes?...............................14f. ChangeofUseOptions.......................................................................................................15g. Recommendations............................................................................................................18

3. INTERSTATEISSUES...................................................................................................18

4. LAKEPOWELLISSUES.................................................................................................22a. LakePowellOperations......................................................................................................22b. ConsiderationsforManagingCompactSecurityWater......................................................23

5. CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................25

1. INTRODUCTIONWatershepherdinginvolvesmovingspecifiedquantitiesofalready-appropriatedwatertoaspecificpointdownstreamofitsoriginalplaceofuseorstoragewithoutdiminishmentbyotherappropriators.1Shepherdingtypicallyincludesbothupstreamanddownstreamcomponents.Upstreamadministrationrequiresmaintainingtheprioritycallofthe

1Waterflowingnaturallyinstreamsandriversisconsideredtobeapublicresourceandissubjecttodiversionandusebythoseholdingvalidwaterrights.Colo.Const.art.XVI,§5(“Thewaterofeverynaturalstream,notheretoforeappropriatedwithinthestateofColorado,isherebydeclaredtobethepropertyofthepublic,andthesameisdedicatedtotheuseofthepeopleofthestate,subjecttoappropriationashereinafterprovided.”);Colo.Const.art.XVI,§6(“Therighttodiverttheunappropriatedwatersofanynaturalstreamtobeneficialusesshallneverbedenied.”)Appropriationsofwaterplaceaclaimonthispublicresource,enablingitsdiversionataspecifiedrateanditsuseforthespecifiedpurposeandinthespecifiedmanneraccordingtothepriorityofthewaterright.Colo.Rev.Stat.§§37-92-103(3),(4),(5),(12).ColoradostatuteschargetheStateEngineer’sOfficewithadministeringthediversionanduseofwateraccordingtorightsadjudicatedinColoradowatercourts.Colo.Rev.Stat.§§37-92-301(1),37-92-501(1).

Page 2: TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8-29-17 · 16 See, e.g., South Platte River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-65-101; Rio Grande River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-66-101. 17 See Simpson v. Bijou

2

underlyingwaterrightontheriver,sothatupstreamjuniorwaterusersarenotabletodivertandconsumethewaterbeforeitreachestheoriginalpointofdiversionorplaceofstorage.Downstreamadministrationinvolvesprotectingthewaterthatisbypassedatthatpointofdiversionorreleasedfromstoragetoensurethatitreachesthenewdownstreamplaceofuseundiminishedbyotherdiversions.Thewatertobeshepherdedmaybegeneratedbyapplyingconservationpracticestoexistinguses,mostcommonlyirrigation,toreducetheamountofwaterconsumedundertheoriginalright,2orthroughtemporarynon-useofexistingwaterrightsorreleaseofwaterstoredinreservoirs.ThisTechnicalAppendixdiscussestheconceptofshepherdingforthespecificandlimitedpurposeofcomplyingwithColoradoRiverCompactobligations,includingreducingtheriskofafuturecurtailmentofColoradowaterusestomeettheCompact’srequirements.Thesepurposesarecollectivelyreferredtohereinas“Compactsecurity.”3TheneedforaddressingCompactsecurityisrecognizedinColorado’sWaterPlan4andintheInterbasinCompactCommittee’sConceptualFramework.5ThegoalistomaintainorincreasestoragelevelsinLakePowellduringperiodswhendecreasingreservoirlevelsthreatentheabilitytogeneratehydroelectricpowerortomeettheobligationoftheStatesoftheUpperDivision6underthe1922ColoradoRiverCompact,eitherimmediatelyorinthenearfuture.7ThegenerationofhydropowerandtheabilitytomeetCompactobligationsaredirectlyrelated:aslakelevelsandthecorrespondingpressuredecline,thephysicaloutletsforreleasingwaterfromGlenCanyonDambelowthehydropowerturbinesareunabletopasssufficientwatertomeettheArticleIII(d)flowrequirementsoftheColoradoRiverCompactatLeeFerry.8Moreover,

2Themostcommonconservationtechniquesarerotationalfallowing,deficitirrigation,splitseasonirrigation,andcropswitching.3Theprecisetriggersforanefforttodirectadditionalwatertothereservoirinordertoreducetheriskoffuturecurtailmentofwaterrightsincluding,forexample,particularelevationsinLakePowellandten-yearvolumeofwaterpassingLeeFerry,areunderdiscussionwithinColoradoandtheUpperDivisionstatesbuthavenotyetbeendetermined.ThelevelsofacceptableandunacceptableriskthatcurtailmentofexistingwaterrightsmayberequiredtocomplywithCompactobligationsarealsopartofthisdiscussion.Itisbeyondthescopeofthispapertosuggestwhattheresolutionoftheseissuesshouldbe.4Colorado’sWaterPlan,Ch.9.1at9-5,9-8.5Colorado’sWaterPlan,Ch.8at8-14,Principle4.6WhileColorado,NewMexico,Utah,andWyomingarecommonlyreferredtoasthe“UpperBasinStates,”the1922CompactdefinestheUpperandLowerBasinsgeographicallyanddefinesthesestatesasthe“StatesoftheUpperDivision.”ArticleII(c),(d),(f),(g).Theterm“UpperDivision”isusedhereintorefertothestatesthemselves.7The1922ColoradoRiverCompactcontainstwospecificobligationsapplyingspecificallytotheUpperBasin:underArticleIII(c),theUpperDivisionstatesareobligatedtodelivertoLeeFerryone-halfofthedeficiency(ifany)ofwatercommittedtoMexicoundertreaty;andunderArticleIII(d),theUpperDivisionischargedwithnotcausingtheflowsatLeeFerrytobedepletedbelow75millionacre-feetduringanyconsecutiveten-yearperiod.8JohnC.Schmidt,FillMeadFirst–ATechnicalAssessment,WhitePaperNo.1,CenterforColoradoRiverStudies(Nov.10,2016),availableathttps://qcnr.usu.edu/wats/colorado_river_studies/files/documents/Fill_Mead_First_Analysis.pdf;EricKuhn,MemorandumtoCRWCDBoardMembers,JointWestSlopeRoundtablesRiskStudyResultsSummaryandThoughtsontheNextSteps1-2(Sept.13,2016),availableathttp://www.coloradoriverdistrict.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/20160913-Joint-west-slope-risk-study-update.pdf.

Page 3: TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8-29-17 · 16 See, e.g., South Platte River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-65-101; Rio Grande River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-66-101. 17 See Simpson v. Bijou

3

revenuesderivedfromGlenCanyonDamhydropowergenerationsupporttheoperationoftheBureauofReclamationfacilitiesandprogramsintheUpperBasinthatallowbothreliablewateruseandcontinuedCompactcompliance.9ItshouldbenotedthattherearesituationsinColoradoforwhichnodownstreamshepherdingisrequiredtomakeCompactsecuritywateravailableatthestateline.Oneexampleisaditchsystemlocatedrelativelyneartotheneighboringstateborderthatmaybeabletouseitsexistingrightsandfacilitiestotransportconservedorchangedwatertothestatelinewithoutusebyothers.10Theremayalsobeopportunitiestoutilizeexistingstoragereservoirsandreleasewaterduringtimesoflittleirrigationactivityorwhenirrigationsystemshaveafullsupplyofwater,trustingthatthemajorityofthereleasewouldreachtheborder.TheinitialstorageunitsauthorizedundertheColoradoRiverStorageProjectAct,11includingtheAspinallUnitinColorado,generallyareoperatedtoensureCompactcompliance.MovementofwaterbetweensuchfacilitiesforthepurposeofCompactsecuritymaybepossibleandeliminatetheneedforotherformsofshepherding.12Absentrelativelyspecializedcircumstances,however,legally-authorizedshepherdingthroughColoradowillberequiredtoallowthesecuremovementofadditionalwatertoLakePowell.InSection2below,wediscussexistingauthorityinColoradolawthatmightbeappliedtoshepherdwaterforCompactsecuritypurposes.Wefurtherdiscussthelegalissuesthatwilllikelyariseifachangeofuseisnecessary.Weconsidertheoptionsavailableforobtainingapprovalofthistypeofchangeofuse.Finally,weofferrecommendationstopavethewayforshepherdingofCompactsecuritywater,includingpossiblelegislativechanges.InSection3,weaddresstheneedtoprotectshepherdedwaterindownstreamstatestoensurethatwaterdirectedtotheColoradostatelinereachesLakePowellwithoutdiminishment.InSection4,weconsideroptionsformanagingthatwateronceitreachesLakePowell.WeprovideconclusionsandrecommendationsinSection5.

2. COLORADOLEGALFRAMEWORK

a. ExistingLegalAuthoritytoShepherdCompactSecurityWater

i. TheStateEngineer’sCompactRulePower.TheColoradoStateEngineerisauthorizedto“makeandenforcesuchregulationswithrespecttodeliveriesofwateraswillenablethestateofColoradotomeetitscompact

9U.S.BureauofReclamation,GlenCanyonDamandPowerplant,LakePowell,https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/crsp/gc/gcdbrochure.pdf.10However,upstreamadministrationwillstillgenerallyberequiredinthissituationtoensurethatthewatercontinuestobeavailableattheoriginalpointofdiversionwithoutdepletionbyupstreamjuniors.11ColoradoRiverStorageProjectAct(CRSPA),43U.S.C.§620.TheinitialunitsareCurecanti(Aspinall),FlamingGorge,Navajo,andGlenCanyon.12SeeBoardofCountyCom'rsofCountyofArapahoev.CrystalCreekHomeownersAssoc.,14P.3d325,333-35(Colo.2000)(hereinafter,ArapahoeII).

Page 4: TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8-29-17 · 16 See, e.g., South Platte River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-65-101; Rio Grande River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-66-101. 17 See Simpson v. Bijou

4

commitments.”13Thisauthorityislimitedtoregulations“necessarytoensureColorado'scompliancewithitsinterstatewatercompacts,butonlyinthoseinstanceswherethecompactitselfisdeficientinestablishingtermsforcompliancewithinColorado.”14TheStateEngineerissubjectto“considerableonus”toensurecompliancewithinterstateobligationsandifthereisan“irreconcilableconflictbetweenintrastatepriorityadministrationandcompliancewithaninterstatecompact,itiscompactcompliancethatmusttakeprecedence.”15MeetingColorado’sinterstatecompactcommitmentsincludesensuringthatrequiredamountsofwaterareavailableatthepointofmeasurementdesignatedintheapplicablecompact.Insomeofitsinterstatecompacts,Coloradoisrequiredtoensurethataspecifiedflowrateorvolumeofwaterpassthestatelineatspecifiedpointsintime.16Intimesofshortage,theStateEngineerwillcurtailwaterrightswithinthestatepursuanttotheprioritysystemtoproducethespecifiedflowrateorvolume.17The1922ColoradoRiverCompactissomewhatdifferent.Amongotherthings,itplacesresponsibilityontheUpperDivisionstates,includingColorado,notto“cause”flowspassingtotheLowerBasintobedepletedbelow75millionacrefeetinconsecutiveten-yearperiods(referredtohereinasthe“75/10obligation”).18The1948UpperColoradoRiverCompactgivestheUpperColoradoRiverCommission(UCRC)theresponsibilitytodeterminetheamountsofexistingconsumptiveuseineachUpperDivisionstatethatmustbereducedtocomplywiththe75/10obligation.19Suchreductionsinuse,orcurtailment,canbedescribedas“Compactcompliance.”LakePowellandtheotherinitialUpperBasinreservoirsconstructedundertheauthorityofCRSPA20areoperatedprimarilytoallowtheUpperDivisionstatestosatisfytheColoradoRiverCompact“withouterodingotherrightsdecreedtobeneficialuseinthestate.”21IntheeventstorageinthesereservoirsisnotsufficienttoproducethenecessaryflowstotheLowerBasin,existingusesintheUpperDivisionstateswillneedtobecurtailed,likelyin

13Colo.Rev.Stat.§37-80-104(knownasthe“compactrule”power).14Simpsonv.BijouIrrigationCo.,69P.3d50,68(Colo.2003).15Id.at68-69.16See,e.g.,SouthPlatteRiverCompact,Colo.Rev.Stat.§37-65-101;RioGrandeRiverCompact,Colo.Rev.Stat.§37-66-101.17SeeSimpsonv.BijouIrrigationCo.,69P.3dat68-69.18ColoradoRiverCompact,Art.III(d).TheCompactspecifiesthatthe“StatesoftheUpperDivisionwillnotcausetheflowoftheriveratLeeFerrytobedepletedbelowanaggregateof75,000,000acre-feetforanyperiodoftenconsecutiveyears.”Thereissomeuncertaintyrespectingthemeaningof“cause.”19UpperColoradoRiverCompact,Colo.Rev.Stat.§37-62-101,Art.IV(“IntheeventcurtailmentofuseofwaterbytheStatesoftheUpperDivisionatanytimeshallbecomenecessaryinorderthattheflowatLeeferryshallnotbedepletedbelowthatrequiredbyArticleIIIoftheColoradorivercompact,theextentofcurtailmentbyeachStateoftheconsumptiveuseofwaterapportionedtoitbyArticleIIIofthisCompactshallbeinsuchquantitiesandatsuchtimesasshallbedeterminedbytheCommission....”)20Seen.11supra.21ArapahoeII,14P.3d325,334.

Page 5: TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8-29-17 · 16 See, e.g., South Platte River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-65-101; Rio Grande River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-66-101. 17 See Simpson v. Bijou

5

priorityorder.22Toavoidtheneedforsuchcurtailmentinthefuture,theUpperDivisionstatesareexploringproactivemeasuresinvolving,amongotherthings,temporary,voluntaryreductionofconsumptionthatwillensurethatflowswillbesufficienttomeetthe75/10obligation.Asmentioned,theUCRCisauthorizedtomakefindingsconcerningthenecessityforandextentofcurtailmentamongtheUpperDivisionstatesrequiredtoensurethat“theflowatLeeFerryshallnotbedepletedbelowthatrequiredbyArticleIIIoftheColoradoRiverCompact.”23WhileitiscleartheUCRChasthisauthorityintheeventcurtailmentisnecessary,theUCRC’sauthoritymayalsoincludetheabilitytomakeaforward-lookingfindingthatfuturecurtailmentofexistingusesofwaterintheUpperDivisionstateswillberequiredunlessstepsaretakentoincreasestoragelevelsinLakePowell.24Theexerciseofproactiveauthorityinthismannerwouldbebasedontheneedforefficientadministrationofthe75/10obligation.The1922Compact’sprovisionthatthestatesoftheUpperDivision“willnotcause”flowsatLeeFerrytodropbelow75millionacre-feetduringconsecutiveten-yearperiodsprovidessupportforsuchafinding.Allowingforvoluntary,compensatedconservationofexistingconsumptiveuseandstorageofthatwaterinLakePowelltoreducetheriskoffuturecurtailmentofColoradowaterrightsisasensibleandprudentmeasure.Thisistheconceptof“Compactsecurity.”TheStateEngineer’scompactrulepowerclearlyauthorizesadoptionofregulationsthatwouldgoverncurtailmentandshepherdingintheeventtheUCRCdeterminestherehasbeenashortageofwateratLeeFerryobligatedunderArticleIII(d)ofthe1922Compact.ItmayalsobepossibletousethisauthoritytoprotectandshepherdCompactsecuritywatertothestatelinetoreducetheriskofcurtailmentbasedonthenatureoftheobligationinthe1922CompactandthepotentiallysevererepercussionsforColoradoRiverBasinwaterusersinColorado.25TheStateEngineerwouldusethecompactrulepowertomanagewater

22UpperColoradoRiverCompact,Art.IV.Inaddition,anystatewhichintheprevioustenyearshasconsumptivelyusedmorethanitspercentageapportionmentofwatermustfirstprovidethefullamountofits“overdraft”atLeeFerrybeforeanyotherstatemustcurtailitsusers.Art.IV(b).23Id.,Art.IV,VIII(c)(8).24ThistopicisdiscussedmorefullyinSection3below.25Coloradoisauthorizedtoconsumptivelyuse51.75%ofthetotalUpperBasinconsumptiveuse.UpperColoradoRiverCompact,Art.III(a)(2).Intheeventcurtailmentisrequired,anystatethatduringthepreceding10yearsusedmorethanitsallocatedsharemustrepaythatamountfirstbeforeusersinotherstatesarecurtailed(“IfanyStateorStatesoftheUpperDivision,inthetenyearsimmediatelyprecedingthewateryearinwhichcurtailmentisnecessary,shallhaveconsumptivelyusedmorewaterthanitwasortheywere,asthecasemaybe,entitledtouseundertheapportionmentmadebyArticleIIIofthisCompact,suchStateorStatesshallberequiredtosupplyatLeeFerryaquantityofwaterequaltoits,ortheaggregateoftheir,overdraftoftheproportionatepartofsuchoverdraft,asmaybenecessarytoassurecompliancewithArticleIIIoftheColoradoRiverCompact,beforedemandismadeonanyotherStateoftheUpperDivision”).UpperColoradoRiverCompact,Art.IV(b).Inrecentyears,Coloradohasbeenusingapproximately58percentoftheoverallamountofwaterusedbytheUpperDivisionstatesandis,therefore,vulnerabletocurtailmentofitsexistingusesfirsttomakeupforitsadditionaluseofwaterbeforetheUpperDivisionstatesarecollectively

Page 6: TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8-29-17 · 16 See, e.g., South Platte River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-65-101; Rio Grande River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-66-101. 17 See Simpson v. Bijou

6

designatedforCompactsecuritysothatitreachesthestatelinetoensurethatColoradocomplieswithArticleIII(d)oftheColoradoRiverCompactandisnotpenalizedforusingmorewaterthanauthorizedunderArticleIV(b)ofthe1948Compact.Thelegalauthorityunderstatelawforthisproactiveuseofthecompactrulepowerislessobvious,butthedutynottocauseaviolationofthe75/10obligationandthefactthatColoradocurrentlyusesmorethanitspercentageallocationunderthe1948Compact,thuspotentiallysubjectingittoadditionalobligations,provideamplebasisfortheStateEngineertoact.AfindingbytheUCRCthattheabilityoftheUpperDivisionstatestomeetCompactobligationsisthreatenedwithouttemporary,voluntaryreductionofconsumptionintheUpperDivisionstatesanddeliveryofthiswatertoLakePowellwouldfurthersupportsuchStateEngineeraction.ItshouldbeemphasizedthatthelogicdescribedaboveappliestotheStateEngineer’sadoptionofrulesforadministrationofvoluntarilyprovidedCompactsecuritywater,nottoforcedcurtailmentinadvanceofaCompactcall.AnyuncertaintyintheStateEngineer’sauthoritytoutilizethecompactrulepowerinthismannercouldberesolvedthroughlegislativeconfirmation.

ii. DeliveryofStorageWater.Coloradolawprovidesfortheshepherdingofwaterpasttheheadgatesofotherwould-beappropriatorsinanothercontextthatmaybehelpfultosupportshepherdingforCompactsecurity.Reservoir“owners”areauthorizedto“conductthewaterslegallystoredthereinintoandalonganyofthenaturalstreamsofthestate,...andmaytakethesameoutagainatanypointdesiredifnomaterialinjuryresultstothepriororsubsequentrightsofotherstootherwatersinsaidnaturalstreams.”26Whilethestatutereferstoreservoirowners,itwouldseemthatownersofwaterstoredinreservoirs,notjusttheownerofthereservoiritself,areentitledtothesameconsideration.Inpractice,reservoirreleasesareroutinelyshepherdedfromthereservoirdownstreamtotheplaceofuse.ThelegalabilitytoshepherdstoredwaterthroughaColoradostreamhasbeenrecognizedbytheTenthCircuitCourtofAppealsinPublicServiceCo.ofColo.v.Fed.EnergyRegulatoryComm’n.27PublicServiceCompanyclaimedavestedpropertyrightunderColorado’sconstitutiontodivertandusewaterreleasedbytheUnitedStatesfromstorageinGreenMountainReservoir.TheCourtstatedthatresolutionoftheclaimwasbasedonthecontrolofwaterstoredinareservoirforthepurposeofdownstreamdeliveryforbeneficialuseanditsseparationfromthenaturalflowofastream.28TheCourtfound,interpretingColoradolaw,"Itiselementarythatastreammaybeusedasapartoftheditchsystemandthatthepersonaddingthewaterhastherighttoredivertitfromthestreamattheplaceitisneeded

requiredtoreduceusestosatisfythe75/10obligation.BureauofReclamation,UpperColoradoRiverBasinConsumptiveUsesandLossesReport,2011-2015(Provisional)March2016.26Colo.Rev.Stat.§37-87-102(4).27754F.2d1555(10thCir.1985).28Id.at1564.

Page 7: TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8-29-17 · 16 See, e.g., South Platte River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-65-101; Rio Grande River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-66-101. 17 See Simpson v. Bijou

7

foruse."29AstheCourtexplained,“Thereservoirownerwhousesanaturalstreamtodeliverstoredwaterthereforedoesnotabandonorlosecontroloverthestoredwaterwhenheplacesitinthestreamfordelivery,rediversionandbeneficialusedownstream.”30Theimpliedconclusionthatinterveningwaterusersarenotentitledtodivertthewater“added”upstreamisthenmadeexplicit,asfollows:

Ifthereservoirownerdoesnotrelinquishcontrolofhis"batch"ofstoragewaterbysendingitdownanaturalstreamchannel,itfollowsthatotherappropriatorsonthestream,eventhoughtheymaybeseniortothereservoirownerinpriority,donotgaintherighttodivertthat"batch"ofstoragewaterasitpassestheirheadgates,ortomakeuseofthestoragewaterinanyway.Theirrightstodivertwaterforbeneficialuseapplyonlytothestream's"naturalflow";theydonotapplytostoragewaterbeingdelivereddownthestream.Thatwaterhasa"label"onitandisnolongerpublicproperty.31

Materialinjurytootherrightsisavoidedbyprovidingnoticetotheappropriatewaterofficialswhocan“measurethephysicalparametersoftherelease... calculatedeliverylosses,andtherebyprotecttheinterestsofboththereservoirownerandtheotherappropriatorsonthestream.”32ThislogicledtheTenthCircuittotheconclusionthattheUnitedStatesastheownerofGreenMountainReservoirretainedcontrolofthewaterreleasedforthebenefitofspecifieddownstreamuses.33ThesamelogiccouldbeappliedtoshepherdingCompactsecuritywatertotheColoradostateline.WaterconservedorchangedforCompactsecuritypurposescouldbeadministeredasalegallyprotectableinterestasagainsttheclaimsofotherappropriators.34Suchwaterwouldnototherwisebeavailableasnaturalflowfordiversionbutforitsconservationorchangeofuse.TherestrictionofthereservoirstatutetostoredwaterandthelimitedprecedentprovidedbythefederalcourtdecisionininterpretingColoradolawmustbeweighedinconsideringwhethertheexistingColoradolegalframeworkcansupport

29Id.,quotingTrelease,ReclamationWaterRights,32RockyMtn.L.Rev.464,471(1960).30Id.at1565.31Id.TheCourtusestheterm“batch”because,undertherulesgoverningoperationofGreenMountainReservoir,waterisnotreleasedtospecificusersbutisreleasedforthebenefitofmultipleunspecifiedusers.(“GreenMountainReservoirwouldstore100,000acre-feetofwaterforpurposesofpowerproductionatthesite.Whenthisstoredwaterwasreleased,itwouldbeavailabletoappropriatorsforirrigationanddomesticpurposesdownstreamwithoutcharge.”Id.at1560.)32Id.at1564;seealsoColo.Rev.Stat.§§37-87-102(4)and-103.Shepherdingofwatermayrequirealterationofdiversionstructuresthat“sweeptheriver”toallowitsbypass.Theissueoffinancialresponsibilityforsuchalterationsisunresolved.33754F.2dat1565.34ThecontrolofthisinterestisfurtherdiscussedinSection2.dbelow.TheauthorstakenopositionregardingtheabilityofotherwateruserstoexchangeagainstsuchCompactsecuritywaterinthestream.Itshouldbenoted,however,thatlegislationwasintroducedin2017toallowprotectionofreleasesfromstorageagainstexchangesthroughacontractualarrangementwiththeColoradoWaterConservationBoard.SeeSenateBill2017-282.Thelegislationwasunsuccessful.

Page 8: TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8-29-17 · 16 See, e.g., South Platte River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-65-101; Rio Grande River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-66-101. 17 See Simpson v. Bijou

8

Compactsecurityshepherding.Moreover,asdiscussedbelow,theintendedout-of-stateplaceofstorageinLakePowellraisesadditionalissuesthatmustbeaddressed.

b. BeneficialUseToallowuseofwaterforCompactsecuritypurposes,theunderlyingwaterrightmayneedtobelegallyauthorizedinsomemannerifitsexistingdecreedoesnotenablethistypeofuse.35Ifachangeofuseisnecessary,theapplicantmustdemonstratethatthenewusemeetsthesamerequirementsthatapplytoobtainadecreeforanewappropriationofwater,includingthespecificmannerinwhichthewaterwillbeused.36TheintendedpurposeofthenewusewouldbeforCompactsecurity,includingreducingtheriskthatcurtailmentofColoradowaterrightswillberequired.TheuseofappropriatedwaterforCompactsecuritypurposesraisesthequestionastowhetherthisusewouldberecognizedasbeneficialunderColoradolaw.Coloradolawlimitstheappropriationofwatertoitsapplicationtoabeneficialuse,anddefinesbeneficialuseas“theuseofthatamountofwaterthatisreasonableandappropriateunderreasonablyefficientpracticestoaccomplishwithoutwastethepurposeforwhichtheappropriationislawfullymade.”37TheColoradoSupremeCourthasrecentlyheldthatforausetobebeneficialitmusthaveobjectivebenefitsandthattheamountofwaternecessaryfortheaccomplishmentofthepurposemustbemeasurable.38BoththestatutorydefinitionofbeneficialuseandtheopinioninSt.Jude’sCo.v.RoaringForkClub,LLC39placeemphasisontheamountofwater

35Stricklerv.CityofColoradoSprings,16Colo.61,26P.313(1891).SomeexistingColoradowaterrightshavebeenrecognizedtobeauthorizedforusetosatisfyColoradoRiverCompactobligations,throughbankingofwaterforlaterCompactdeliveries.See,e.g.,ArapahoeII,14P.3d325,335.36HighPlainsA&M,LLCv.SoutheasternColoradoWaterConservancyDist.,120P.3d710,720&721(Colo.2005)(“Theessentialfunctionofthechangeproceedingistoconfirmthatavalidappropriationcontinuesineffectunderdecreeprovisionsthatdifferfromthosecontainedinthepriordecree.”“Thechangeapplicationprocessisintendedtofacilitatetransfersthatarecalculatedtoresultinacontinuedapplicationoftheappropriatedwatertospecifiedbeneficialusesatdifferentidentifiedlocationsfromthecurrentdecreeunderconditionstopreventinjurytootherwaterrights.”)37Colo.Rev.Stat.§37-92-103(3)(a),(4).WhiletheColoradoSupremeCourthashadnumerousoccasionstoconsiderwhetheraparticulartypeofusecanbeconsidered“beneficial”withinthemeaningoftheColoradoConstitution,theGeneralAssemblyhasonlylegislativelyaddressedthreetypesofuses:(1)theimpoundmentofwaterforfirefightingorstorageforanypurposeforwhichanappropriationislawfullymade,includingrecreational,fishery,orwildlifepurposes;(2)theappropriationbythestateofColorado,forthebenefitandenjoymentofpresentandfuturegenerationsandinthemannerprescribedbylaw,ofsuchminimumflowsbetweenspecificpointsreasonabledegree;and(3)thediversionofwaterbyacounty,municipality,cityandcounty,waterdistrict,waterandsanitationdistrict,waterconservationdistrict,orwaterconservancydistrictforrecreationalin-channeldiversionpurposes.Colo.Rev.Stat.§37–92–103(4)(a)–(c).38St.Jude’sCo.v.RoaringForkClub,LLC,351P.3d442(Colo.2015).39Id.

Page 9: TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8-29-17 · 16 See, e.g., South Platte River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-65-101; Rio Grande River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-66-101. 17 See Simpson v. Bijou

9

appropriatedandthemannerinwhichtheusebenefitstheappropriator.40Lessattentionisgiventothepurposesthatcanberegardedasbeneficial.Indeed,astheSt.Jude’scourtnoted,thepurposesforwhichwaterisbeingappropriatedcontinuetochangeovertime.41Theuseofwaterforcompactcompliancehasbeenrecognizedasabeneficialuseandexpresslyauthorizedincertaincases.42TheuseofwaterinColoradoforproactiveCompactsecurityissubjecttogreateruncertainty.IntheArapahoeIIdecision,theColoradoSupremeCourtrecognizedthatthestorageandreleaseofwaterintheAspinallUnit(BlueMesa,MorrowPoint,andCrystalReservoirs)pursuanttotheColoradoRiverStorageProjectActservetohelpmeetColorado’sCompactobligations,includingthroughthebankingofwaterforlaterCompactdeliveries.43WhiletheArapahoeIIdecisionisbasedonthepurposesforwhichtheinitialUpperBasinreservoirsareoperatedunderCRSPA,itneverthelesssupportsthepositionthatusesofwaterappropriatedinColoradoforCompactsecuritymayalreadybeconsideredbeneficial.UseofwaterforCompactsecuritydoesnotrequireadiversion.Ingeneral,Coloradowaterlawhasincludedarequirementthattherebeadiversionofwatertoaccomplishtheproposedbeneficialuseasanecessaryelementofavalidappropriation.44Yetthestatutory

40Beneficialuseisoftendefinedas“thebasis,themeasure,andlimit”ofawaterright.See,e.g.,Wyo.Stat.Ann.§41-3-101.SeealsoArchuletav.Gomez,200P.3d333,343(Colo.2009).Courtshavelongusedthisbasistoconsiderwhethertheamountofwaterproposedtobeappropriatedisreasonablynecessarytoaccomplishtheproposedpurposeoftheappropriation.SeeLawrenceJ.MacDonnell,PriorAppropriation:AReassessment,18U.DENV.WATERL.REV.228,265(2015).TheColoradoSupremeCourtalsoobjectedtothepassivenatureofthebenefitsoftheuseproposedbytheRoaringForkClub,namelydiversionofwaterintoaditchforaprivatefly-fishingamenity.St.Jude’s,351P.3dat450-51.41“Beyondtheserudimentaryconstraints,the1969Act’sdefinitionofbeneficialuseisexpansive,leavingroomfornew,innovativeuses.”351P.3dat449(citingcoalbedmethaneextractionasanexample).42SeeFindingsofFact,ConclusionsofLaw,RulingoftheReferee,JudgmentandDecreeoftheWaterCourtdatedAugust16,2017,CaseNo.2014CW3135,WaterDivision1,Colorado,ApplicationforWaterRightsoftheRepublicanRiverWaterConservationDistrictandYumaCountyWaterAuthorityPublicImprovementDistrict(changeofusetoadd“assisttheStateofColoradotocarryoutitsdutytocomplywiththelimitationsimposedontheStateundertheRepublicanRiverCompact”).TheColoradoGroundWaterCommissionhasalsoapprovedachangeofuseforawellto“RepublicanRiverCompactCompliance”purposes.ColoradoGroundWaterCommission,FindingsandOrderdatedJune20,2013,PermitNo.76149,ApplicationofRepublicanRiverWaterConservationDistrict–WaterActivityEnterprise.43ArapahoeII,14P.3dat334-35(“WeagreethattheCRSPAreservoirsarepartofaplantoallowColoradotodevelopandpreserveCompactapportionment.However,wefindthatthestoredwaterprovidesColoradowithanabilitytosatisfytheCompactdeliverymandateswithouterodingotherrightsdecreedtobeneficialuseinthestate....BybankingCRSPAwaterforCompactdeliveriesandusingthereservoirsfortheirotherdecreedpurposes,Coloradocontinuesdevelopmentofitswaterentitlements.”)TheAspinallUnitwaterrightsadjudicatedinColoradowatercourtonlyauthorizedomesticandmunicipaluses,irrigationandstockwatering,industrial,power,floodcontrol,piscatorial,wildlifeprotectionandpreservation,andrecreationalpurposes,anddonotexplicitlyaddressCompactcomplianceorsecurity.Id.at336.Nevertheless,theCourtconcluded:“[T]hestorageandreleaseofwaterfromtheAspinallUnitforCompactdeliverypurposesaidsColoradoinmeetingitsCompactobligations,therebybenefitingthestate’swaterusers.”Id.at341-42.44See,e.g.,ColoradoRiverWaterConservationDistrictv.RockyMountainPower,158Colo.331,335,406P.2d798,800(1965)(diversionnecessarytoconstituteanappropriation).

Page 10: TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8-29-17 · 16 See, e.g., South Platte River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-65-101; Rio Grande River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-66-101. 17 See Simpson v. Bijou

10

definitionofappropriationdoesnotincludeadiversionrequirement,45andbeneficialusehasbeenstatutorilydefinedtoincludestateappropriationofflowsorlevelsofwater“topreservethenaturalenvironmenttoareasonabledegree.”46Whileitmaybearguedthatdiversionsareonlynecessarywhenrequiredtoaccomplishtheintendedbeneficialuse,47thisisanotherareaofuncertainty.Viewedbroadly,itwouldseemthattheuseofwaterforCompactsecuritypurposesshouldfallwithinColorado’sdefinitionofbeneficialuseandshouldnotberestrictedbythediversionrequirement.ThepotentialoverallbenefitstotheStateanditswaterusersareconsiderable.NodiversionisrequiredtoachievetheintendedpurposeoftheCompactsecurityuse.TheamountsofwaterreasonablynecessarytoaccomplishthispurposecanbeobjectivelydeterminedthroughmodelingprocessesnowavailabletotheState.48Nevertheless,suchdeterminationsmayraisedifficultissuesassociatedwithpredictingfuturewateravailabilityandusesintheUpperandLowerBasinsandtheacceptablelevelofriskoffuturecurtailment.AlloftheseconcernsanduncertaintiessuggestthatlegislativeconfirmationthattheuseofwaterforCompactsecurityconstitutesabeneficialusewouldbeprudent.

c. Out-of-StateUseColoradolawhasspecialprovisionsgoverningtheappropriationofwaterinColoradoforuseout-of-state.49Reflectingconcernsthatsufficientwaterisavailabletomeetin-stateuses,theseexportstatuteprovisionssubjectappropriationsforout-of-stateusetospecialrevieweitherbythestateengineer,groundwatercommission,orthewatercourt,dependingonwhethertheappropriationisofgroundwaterorofsurfacewater.50Thereviewmustproducethefollowingfindings:

(a)Theproposeduseofwateroutsidethisstateisexpresslyauthorizedbyinterstatecompactorcreditedasadeliverytoanotherstatepursuanttosection37-81-103orthattheproposeduseofwaterdoesnotimpairtheabilityofthisstatetocomply

45“’Appropriation’meanstheapplicationofaspecifiedportionofthewatersofthestatetoabeneficialuse….”Colo.Rev.Stat.§37-92-103(3)(a).46Colo.Rev.Stat.§37-92-103(4).47See,e.g.TownofGenoav.Westfall,141Colo.533,349P.2d370(1960)(“Itisnotnecessaryineverycaseforanappropriatorofwatertoconstructditchesorartificialwaysthroughwhichthewatermightbetakenfromthestreaminorderthatavalidappropriationbemade.Theonlyindispensablerequirementsarethattheappropriatorintendstousethewatersforabeneficialpurposeandactuallyapplythemtothatuse.”)141Colo.at547,349P.2dat378.48See,e.g.,ColoradoRiverWaterConservationDistrict,ColoradoRiverRiskStudy:PhaseISummaryReport(DRAFT),Oct.18,2016;U.S.BureauofReclamation,ColoradoRiverBasinStudy,TechnicalReportGandAppendixG2.TheStateEngineermightmakesuchdeterminationsinusingthecompactruleauthoritytoadministerwaterrightsasnecessarytoreducetheriskofcurtailmentofusesunderthe1922Compact.SeeSection2.a(i)supra.49Colo.Rev.Stat.§§37-81-101to-104.50Colo.Rev.Stat.§37-81-101(2).

Page 11: TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8-29-17 · 16 See, e.g., South Platte River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-65-101; Rio Grande River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-66-101. 17 See Simpson v. Bijou

11

withitsobligationsunderanyjudicialdecreeorinterstatecompactwhichapportionswaterbetweenthisstateandanyotherstateorstates;(b)Theproposeduseofwaterisnotinconsistentwiththereasonableconservationofthewaterresourcesofthisstate;and(c)TheproposeduseofwaterwillnotdeprivethecitizensofthisstateofthebeneficialuseofwatersapportionedtoColoradobyinterstatecompactorjudicialdecree.51

UsingColoradowaterprospectivelyforCompactsecurityintheabsenceofcontemporaneouscurtailmenttoachieveCompactcompliancemaynotbe“expresslyauthorized”bytheColoradoRiverCompactortheUpperColoradoRiverBasinCompact.52CreditofCompactsecuritywaterasadeliverytoanotherstatemaybeproblematic,asdiscussedfurtherbelow.Thus,pursuanttoparagraph(a)above,itappearstherewouldneedtobeafindingthatthisuseofColorado’swaterwouldnotinterferewithobligationsunderanycompactordecree.TheproposedCompactsecurityusewouldalsoneedtobedeterminedtobeconsistentwith“reasonableconservation”ofstatewater(paragraph(b)).Andtherewouldneedtobeafindingthattheusewouldnot“deprive”Coloradocitizensofapportionedbeneficialuse(paragraph(c)).NoneoftheserequiredfindingsappearstopresentaclearobstacletouseofconservedorchangedwaterforCompactsecurity,althoughtheadministrativeburdenassociatedwithmakingthesefindingsoneachwaterrightmaybesubstantial.Theout-of-stateexportstatutealsoprohibitsthediversionofwaterinColoradoandtransportationintoorthroughanotherstateforuseinthatstateunlessthewater“iscreditedasadeliverytosuchotherstateorstatesbyColorado.”53WhilereleaseofCompactsecuritywaterbankedinLakePowellwouldultimatelybecreditedasadeliverytotheLowerBasin,thiscreditingwouldlikelynotoccuratthetimethewaterpassesfromtheStateofColorado.WhiletheproposedplaceofstoragewouldbeLakePowell,locatedinUtah,itisunlikelythatUtahwouldbewillingtotreatCompactsecuritywaterprovidedbyColoradoaspartofitsapportionmentundertheUpperColoradoRiverBasinCompact.54

51Colo.Rev.Stat.§37-81-101(3).52If,however,theUCRCweretomakefindingsthatCompactsecuritywaterisnecessaryforcompliancewithArticleIII(d)ofthe1922Compact,suchusesprobablywouldberegardedas“expresslyauthorized.”SeeSection2.a(i)supra.53Colo.Rev.Stat.§37-81-103(1).WhilecreditasadeliverytoanotherstateisanoptionalfindinginSection37-81-101(3)(a),itisrequiredbySection37-81-103(1).54TheUpperColoradoRiverBasinCompactapportionsusesofthewaterallocatedtotheUpperDivisionstatesinthe1922ColoradoRiverCompact.TheintendedpurposeofmakingCompactsecuritywateravailableinLakePowellwouldbetobenefitalloftheUpperDivisionstates.ItisunlikelythatUtahwouldbewillingtodiminishitsownusesforthepurposeofbenefitingtheotherstates.

Page 12: TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8-29-17 · 16 See, e.g., South Platte River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-65-101; Rio Grande River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-66-101. 17 See Simpson v. Bijou

12

Finally,theout-of-stateexportstatuteimposesachargeof$50peracre-footassessed“onwaterdiverted,carried,stored,ortransportedinthisstateforbeneficialuseoutsidethisstatemeasuredatthepointofreleasefromstorageoratthepointofdiversion.”55Thischargewouldmakeasignificantdifferenceintheoverallcostofcompensationforvoluntarilyconservedconsumptiveusewater.TheseprovisionsaredesignedtodiscourageappropriationsofwaterinColoradoforuseout-of-state.Theyreflectthestrongpreferencethatallstateshavetomaximizethebenefitsoftheiravailablewaterresourcesfortheirownusers.Here,however,thepurposeofshepherdingappropriatedwaterout-of-stateistobenefitColoradoanditswaterusersandprovidebetterreliabilitytoColorado’sCompactallocation.ThesebenefitswarrantexemptingCompactsecurityexportsfromtheseprovisions.Arguablythe“use”oftheCompactsecuritywaterisinColoradoandnotout-of-statebecausethebenefitsareenjoyedbyappropriatorsinColoradowhomightotherwisehavetheirwaterrightscurtailed.56AfindingbytheUCRCthatadditionalwaterisrequiredinLakePowelltoensurecompliancewithCompactobligations,asdiscussedinSection2.a(i)above,couldbolstertheargumentthattheout-of-stateexportstatutedoesnotcontrol.Buttheunconventionalnatureofthisprospective,risk-reductiontypeofuseandthebroadlanguageintheout-of-stateexportstatutesuggestthevalueofhavinglegislativesanction.Anyexemptionfromtheout-of-stateexportstatuteshouldbenarrowlydrawnsoastoavoidunintendedconsequencesandshouldnotoverturnorunderminecontraryprovisionsinexistingdecreesorotherlegislation.57

d. WhoMayControlandManagetheWaterRight?Coloradowaterlawexpressesastrongpreferencethattheappropriatorofwateralsobethebeneficialuserofthatwater.58Non-governmentalentitiesmustdemonstrate“eitheralegallyvestedinterestorareasonableexpectationofprocuringsuchinterestinthelandsor55Colo.Rev.Stat.§37-81-104(1)(a).56TheGroundWaterCommissionorder,referencedinn.42,supra,indealingwiththewaterrightsintendedtoprovidewaterforRepublicanRiverCompactcompliance,establishestheplaceofuseas“theNorthForkoftheRepublicanRiverattheColorado-Nebraskastateline.”Nofindingspursuanttotheout-of-stateexportstatuteweremade.57Includingtribalsettlementsandconsentdecrees.Seee.g.,ColoradoUteIndianWaterRightsSettlementActof1988,Pub.L.100-585,102Stat.2973,Section5(“(b)RESTRICTIONONDISPOSALOFWATERSINTOLOWERCOLORADORIVERBASIN.-NoneofthewatersfromtheAnimas-LaPlataorDoloresProjectsmaybesold,exchanged,leased,used,orotherwisedisposedofintoorintheLowerColoradoRiverBasinunlesswaterwithintheColoradoRiverBasinheldbynon-Federal,non-Indianholdersofthatwaterpursuanttoanywaterrightscouldbesosold,exchanged,leased,used,orotherwisedisposedofunderStatelaw,Federallaw,interstatecompacts,orinternationaltreatypursuanttoafinal,nonappealableorderofaFederalcourtorpursuanttoanagreementofthesevenStatessignatorytotheColoradoRiverCompact.”)58Colo.Rev.Stat.§37-92-103(3).Theconcernisthatindividualsorentitieswillappropriatewaterforspeculativepurposes.SeeColoradoRiverWaterConservationDistrictv.VidlerTunnelWaterCo.,197Colo.413,594P.2d566(1979).

Page 13: TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8-29-17 · 16 See, e.g., South Platte River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-65-101; Rio Grande River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-66-101. 17 See Simpson v. Bijou

13

facilitiestobeservedbysuchappropriation.”59Alternativelytheymustprovide“aspecificplanandintenttodivert,store,orotherwisecapture,possess,andcontrolaspecificquantityofwaterforspecificbeneficialuses.”60Governmentalentitiesarenotsubjecttotherequirementofshowingownershipofaninterestinthelandsorfacilitiestobeserved,61althoughsomelimitationsarestillapplicable.62Evenwithchangesofwaterrights,theproponentofthechangedrightisobligatedtoshowthewatercourtthatitholdsaninterestinthelandsorfacilitiestobeservedbythechangedrightandthatithasaspecificplanforuseofthewater.63TheunusualnatureoftheproposeduseforCompactsecuritysuggeststhevalueofsomekindofpublicrolethatcouldincludedevelopingcriteriagoverningsuchuses,acquiringatemporaryinterestinwaterrightsusedforCompactsecurity,supervisingtheprocessofmakingsuchwateravailable,and/orensuringitsavailabilityatthestateline.ThebenefitsofprovidingCompactsecuritywouldbepublicandextendstatewide.Atthesametime,waterusersmayprefertoretainfullcontroloftheirwaterrightswhilemakingthemtemporarilyavailableforCompactsecurityuses.Forpurposesofdiscussion,twooptionsaredescribedbelow.Option1,emphasizingthepublicnatureofprovidingwaterforCompactsecurity.TransactionsinvolvingCompactsecuritywaterwouldbelimitedtoacquisitionbyanauthorizedpublicentity.Itisanticipatedthatthesetransactionswouldrequireonlytemporaryuseofexistingwaterrights,sotheownershipofthewaterrightswouldremainwiththeoriginalappropriator.Thepublicentitywouldenterintoarrangementswithwillingwaterrightholdersfortemporaryuseofthewater.Likely,thesearrangementswouldinvolvethepublicentitytakingalegalinterestsuchasaleaseoracontractualinterestinthistemporaryuseofCompactsecuritywaterduringtimeswhenwaterisusedforthispurpose.64Inmostcases,thetransactionwouldincludecompensationtothewaterrightholder,goingthroughthelegalprocessessuchasachangeofwaterrightnecessarytoallowuseforCompactsecurity,andmanagingthisCompactsecuritywatertoensurethatit

59Colo.Rev.Stat.§37-92-103(3)(a)(I).60Colo.Rev.Stat.§37-92-103(3)(a)(II).61Colo.Rev.Stat.§37-92-103(3)(a)(I).62SeePagosaAreaWaterandSanitationDistrictv.TroutUnlimited,170P.3d307(Colo.2007).63HighPlainsA&M,LLCv.SoutheasternColoradoWaterConservancyDist.,120P.3d710,720(Colo.2005)(“Accordingly,thechangeapplicantmustshowalegallyvestedinterestinthelandtobeservedbythechangeofuseandaspecificplanandintenttousethewaterforspecificpurposes.”)64ItmaybearguedthatArticleIX(a)ofthe1948Compactrequiresthatanypartybeabletoacquiresuchinterests:“NoStateshalldenytherightoftheUnitedStatesofAmericaand,subjecttotheconditionshereinaftercontained,noStateshalldenytherightofanothersignatoryState,anyperson,orentityofanysignatoryStatetoacquirerightstotheuseofwater,ortoconstructorparticipateintheconstructionanduseofdiversionworksandstoragereservoirswithappurtenantworks,canalsandconduitsinoneStateforthepurposeofdiverting,conveying,storing,regulatingandreleasingwatertosatisfytheprovisionsoftheColoradoRiverCompactrelatingtotheobligationoftheStatesoftheUpperDivisiontomakedeliveriesofwateratLeeFerry.”However,CompactsecuritywaterusesmaybeconsideredtobepeculiarlyamatterforeachStatetodetermineandthusnotrestrictedbythisprovision.

Page 14: TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8-29-17 · 16 See, e.g., South Platte River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-65-101; Rio Grande River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-66-101. 17 See Simpson v. Bijou

14

reachesLakePowell.Changesinwaterdiversion,use,andtransportationfacilitiesmayalsobenecessary.TheStateofColorado,probablythroughtheColoradoWaterConservationBoard(CWCB),seemsespeciallyappropriatetoserveastheauthorizedentitytoholdalegalinterestinthewaterrightandmanageaconservedorchangedwaterrightforCompactsecuritypurposes.65–Alternativelyoradditionally,theColoradoRiverWaterConservationDistrict(CRWCD)andtheSouthwesternWaterConservationDistrict(SWCD),whosemissionsincludesafeguardingColorado’scompactentitlementsforthebenefitoftheentirestate,couldbeauthorizedtoservethesepurposes.66Option2,emphasizingflexibilityinthecontroloftransactionsconcerningCompactsecuritywater,underappropriateguidelines.WaterusersmaythemselvesprefertotemporarilymakeCompactsecurityavailable,basedonreceiptofsufficientcompensation.Alternatively,otherinterestedpartiesmayenterintotemporaryarrangementssuchasaleasewithwaterrightholdersunderwhichCompactsecuritywaterwouldbemadeavailable.Necessaryapprovalssuchaschangesofwaterrightscouldbeobtainedbyeitherpartytothetransaction.TheCWCBcouldestablishcriteriathatanyCompactsecuritywatertransactionwouldberequiredtosatisfy.TheStateEngineerwouldadministertheseCompactsecurityusesinthesamemannerasanyotherwaterright.Therearehybridsoftheseapproachesandotheroptionsthatcouldalsobeexplored.

e. WhenMayColoradoWaterBeUsedForCompactSecurityPurposes?WhilethediscussionaboveindicatesthattheuseofColoradowaterforCompactsecuritypurposeswouldbeconsideredabeneficialuse,theuniquenatureofthisusesuggeststheneedforsomekindofauthorizingandsupervisingframework.ItwouldbeadvisabletohaveadeterminationthatCompactsecuritywaterisneededandwarranted.BecausethisisanissueinvolvingtheentireUpperBasin,itwouldbepreferablefortheUpperColoradoRiverCommission,attherequestofthefourUpperDivisionstates,tomakeaninitialdeterminationthatCompactsecuritywaterisneededtoreducetheriskofcurtailmenttomutuallyacceptablelevels.ThisdeterminationwillinvolvejudgmentsofriskofcurtailmentofexistingwaterusesandanassessmentofthepublicvalueofdedicatingvestedwaterrightstoCompactsecurity.TheUCRCdeterminationwouldprovideafoundationforactions65TheCWCB’sdutiesincludepromoting“theconservationofthewatersofthestateofColoradoinordertosecurethegreatestutilizationofsuchwaters”andfostering“theconservationofwaterofthewaterofthestateofColoradobythepromotionandimplementationofsoundmeasurestoenhancewateruseefficiencyinorderto...assuretheavailabilityofadequatesuppliesforfutureuses.”Colo.Rev.Stat.§§37-60-106(1),-106(1)(r).SeealsoColorado’sWaterPlan,Chapter9.1,ontheCWCB’sintenttosupportstrategiestomaximizeuseofwaterwhileactivelyavoidingaColoradoRiverCompactdeficit,includingfurtherinvestigationofdemandmanagement.66Colo.Rev.Stat.§§37-46-101,37-47-101.AdditionalresourcesandfundingwilllikelyberequiredbyanyentitymanagingtheCompactsecuritywater.

Page 15: TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8-29-17 · 16 See, e.g., South Platte River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-65-101; Rio Grande River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-66-101. 17 See Simpson v. Bijou

15

ineachoftheindividualUpperDivisionstatesconcerninghowmuchwaterisrequiredandhowitwouldbeprovidedandmanaged.TheUpperDivisionstateswouldparticipatefullyintheUCRCprocessandprovideforimplementationofitsdeterminationthroughaninterstateagreement.InColorado,implementationoftheUCRCandinterstatedeterminationsconcerningCompactsecuritywaterwouldbestresidewithintheauthoritiesandexpertiseoftheCWCB,67inconsultationwiththeStateEngineerandafterpublicnoticeandopportunityforcomment.TheCWCBwouldestablishprogrammaticguidelinesunderwhichCompactsecuritywaterwouldbemadeavailablefromColorado.TheStateEngineerwouldadoptrulesunderthecompactrulepowerdealingwiththeadministrationofCompactsecuritywater.Inaddition,itislikelythatanoverallvolumetriclimitonUpperBasinCompactsecuritywaterthatcanbestoredinLakePowellwouldbeestablishedbyagreementamongthesevenBasinstatesandtheU.S.Asmentionedabove,theCWCBcouldestablishcriteriaforacquiringandusingCompactsecuritywaterthatanyindividualtransactionwouldhavetomeetandthosecriteriacouldbecompulsoryduringanylegalapprovalprocesssuchasachangeofuse.IftheCWCBandStateEngineerdonotfindthatCompactsecuritywateriswarrantedorifanapplicablevolumetriclimitisreached,thetransactionwouldnotqualifyforCompactsecurityuse.

f. ChangeofUseOptionsInordertoensurethatthewaterrightsofotherappropriatorsarenotmateriallyinjured,useofanexistingwaterrightforCompactsecuritypurposeswilllikelyrequireachangeofuse.Insomeinstances,theexistingdecreemayalreadyallowCompactsecurityuseandnofurtherformalapprovalsarenecessary.68OthersituationsthatmaynotrequireaformalchangethatwouldallowforCompactsecurityuseandauthorizeshepherdingofsuchwaterarenotedintheintroductiontothisAppendix.Nevertheless,mostwaterrightswillrequiresometypeofchange-of-water-rightapprovaltodeterminetheamountofconsumptiveuseavailabletobededicatedtoCompactsecuritypurposesandprovideforanyothertermsandconditionsnecessarytoavoidinjury.Coloradolawnowmakesavailableseveralprocessesunderwhichchangesofuseofexistingwaterrightsmaybeaccomplished.Watercourtisthemostwidelyusedandwouldcertainlybeavailabletoreviewthechangesofusediscussedhere.Judicialreviewinthewatercourtconsiderstheextentoftheappropriation’slawfulhistoricaluseincludingdiversions,return

67AnanalogyisprovidedbytheroleoftheCWCBinmakingdeterminationsthatunappropriatedwatershouldbeappropriatedasaninstreamflowwaterright,basedonitsevaluationthatsuchuseisinthestate’s(andpublic’s)interest.Seehttp://cwcb.state.co.us/environment/instream-flow-program/Pages/main.aspx.AnotherexampletheroleoftheCWCBinevaluatingproposedappropriationsofwaterforrecreationalin-channeldiversions.Seehttp://cwcb.state.co.us/environment/recreational-in-channel-diversions/Pages/main.aspx.68Seee.g.,ArapahoeII,14P.3dat334-35anddiscussioninSection2.bsupra.

Page 16: TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8-29-17 · 16 See, e.g., South Platte River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-65-101; Rio Grande River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-66-101. 17 See Simpson v. Bijou

16

flows,andconsumptiveuses,69whetherthechangedusewouldcontinuetobeavalidappropriation,70thequantityofwateravailabletothechangedusewithoutmaterialinjurytootherwaterrights,71andanytermsandconditionsnecessarytoensurenoinjury.72Becausethewaterwouldbetransportedout-of-state,thecourtwouldprobablyneedtomakethefindingsrequiredbytheexportstatutediscussedaboveforsuchtransfers,unlessanexemptionisenactedoradeterminationmadethatCompactsecurityuseisnotout-of-state.73Concernshavebeenexpressedaboutthetimeandexpenseinvolvedingoingthroughthewatercourtchangeofusereview,particularlywhenonlysmallamountsofwaterareinvolvedandthechangeofuseistemporary.74Determinationofmaterialinjurygenerallyturnsoncomplexanddetailedanalysesofhistoricalconsumptiveuseinanefforttoassurethatstreamflowsremainunalteredbythechangeofuse.75Whiletheproponentcarriestheburdenofprovingabsenceofinjury,theprocessofteninvolvescompetingexpertsandmethodologies.Trialsmayincludemultipledaysofcomplextestimonyregardingtechnicalissues.Moreover,waterrightssubmittedforreviewinachangeproceedingaresubjecttoreductioniftheiractualusesarenotauthorizedundertheiroriginaldecree.76Becauseoftheseconcerns,manywaterrightholdersarereluctanttogothroughajudicialchangeofuseprocess.Thereisgrowinginterestinfindingalternativewaystomanagethenon-legalaspectsofchange-of-rightproceedingsinwatercourtsortouseadministrativeprocesseswhilecontinuingtoprotectotherwaterrightsfrominjury.77BecauseCompactsecurityuseswouldlikelybetemporary—perhapsevenemergency,itwouldbepreferableinourviewtouseoneoftheadministrativereviewprocessesnowavailableunderColoradolaw.Tochangetheuseofstoredwateronatemporarybasis,the

69ConcerningtheApplicationforWaterRightsofCountyofBoulderinBoulderCountyv.BoulderandWeldCountyDitchCompany,367P.3d1179(Colo.2016);BurlingtonDitchReservoirandLandCo.v.MetroWastewaterReclamationDistrict,256P.3d645(Colo.2011);SantaFeTrailRanchesPropertyOwnersAss’nv.Simpson,990P.2d46(1999).70HighPlainsA&M,LLCv.SoutheasternColoradoWaterConservancyDist.,120P.3d710,720(Colo.2005).71ConcerningtheApplicationforWaterRightsofCountyofBoulderinBoulderCountyv.BoulderandWeldCountyDitchCompany,367P.3d1179,1193(Colo.2016)(“BecausetheCountyfailedtocarryitsburdenofproving[historicalconsumptiveuse],italsofailedtocarryitsburdenofshowinganabsenceofinjurytootherwaterusers”).72SantaFeTrailRanchesPropertyOwnersAss’nv.Simpson,990P.2d46,53(1999)73Colo.Rev.Stat.§37-81-101(3).SeediscussioninSection2.csupra.74See,e.g.,BrittBanks&PeterNichols,ARoundtableDiscussionontheNo-InjuryRuleofColoradoWaterLaw,44Colo.Law.77(2015);LeonF.Szeptyckietal.,EnvironmentalWaterRightsTransfers:AReviewofStateLaws,August31,2015.75See,e.g.,ConcerningtheApplicationforWaterRightsofCountyofBoulderinBoulderCountyv.BoulderandWeldCountyDitchCompany,367P.3d1179,1193(Colo.2016).76See,e.g.,SantaFeRanchesPropertyOwnersAssnv.Simpson,990P.2d46(Colo.1999);Cent.Colo.WaterConservancyDist.v.Greeley,147P.3d9,14(Colo.2006).77BanksandNichols,supranote74.

Page 17: TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8-29-17 · 16 See, e.g., South Platte River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-65-101; Rio Grande River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-66-101. 17 See Simpson v. Bijou

17

existingwaterbankprocessmayprovidethebestmechanism.78Thepurposeoftheprogramisto“simplifyandimprovetheapprovalofwaterleases,loans,andexchanges,includinginterruptiblesupplyagreements,ofstoredwaterwithineachriverbasin,reducethecostsassociatedwithsuchtransactions,andincreasetheavailabilityofwater-relatedinformation.”79UnderrulespromulgatedbytheStateEngineer,80waterbanksacceptdepositsofstoredwaterandcreditthewithdrawalofbankedwaterunderleaseorotherarrangement.81TheStateEngineerreviewsthetransactiontoensurenomaterialinjurytootherwaterrights.82Onlytransactionsinvolvingstoredwater,however,canbemanagedthroughawaterbank.OperationofafullyfunctionalCompactsecuritywaterbankprogramwillrequiremodificationtothewaterbankstatutetoallowforbankingofdirectflowwaterrights.83ItmayalsobepossibletousetheinterruptiblewatersupplyagreementprocesstoallowanexistingrighttobeusedtemporarilyforCompactsecuritypurposes.84Suchagreementsenabletheholderofawaterrighttoenterintoanoptionagreementwithanotherpartyallowingtemporaryuseofwateravailableundertheloanedright.85TheStateEngineerreviewsthetransactiontoensurenomaterialinjurytootherwaterusers.86However,usesoftheloanedrightcanonlyoccurinthreeoutofeverytenyearsandthedurationoftheagreementcannotexceed30years.87SuchlimitationsmaynotfittheneedsassociatedwithmakingwateravailableforCompactsecurity.Stillanotheroptionistousethesubstitutewatersupplyplanprovisions.88Whateverlegalmechanismisutilizedforachangeofuse,theCWCBshouldestablishandapprovea“waterconservationprogram”thatprovidesprotectionfortheCompactsecuritywaterfromabandonmentofthewaterrightordiminutionofitshistoricalconsumptiveuse,asprovidedintheColoradostatutes.89

78Colo.Rev.Stat.§§37-80.5-101to-107.ForadiscussionoftheColoradowaterbankandrecommendationsforbroadeninguseofsuchbanks,seeAnneJ.CastleandLawrenceJ.MacDonnell,AnEnhancedWaterBankforColorado,Getches-WilkinsonCenterforNaturalResources,EnergyandtheEnvironment,February2016.79Colo.Rev.Stat.§37-80.5-102.80Todate,ruleshaveonlybeenpromulgatedfortheArkansasRiverBasin.SeeDept.ofNaturalResources,Div.ofWaterResources,RulesGoverningtheArkansasRiverWaterBankPilotProgram,http://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/GenerateRulePdf.do?ruleVersionId=1287&fileName=2%20CCR%20402-1281Colo.Rev.Stat.§37-80.5-104.5(1)(d).82Colo.Rev.Stat.§37-80.5-104.5(1)(b).83SeeCastleandMacDonnell,supranote78.Colorado’sWaterPlanstatesthatacollaborativeprogramofmanagingconsumptiveuseswiththegoalofavoidingaColoradoRiverCompactdeficit“wouldideallyinvolvewaterbankingconcepts,”whilerecognizingthatsuchanapproachhasnotyetbeenfullydeveloped.Colorado’sWaterPlan,Ch.9.1at9-6.84Colo.Rev.Stat.§37-92-309.85Colo.Rev.Stat.§37-92-309(2)(a).86Colo.Rev.Stat.§37-92-309(3)(a)&(b).87Colo.Rev.Stat.§37-92-309(3)(c).88Colo.Rev.Stat.§37-92-308(5).89Colo.Rev.Stat.§§37-92-103(2)(b),-305(3)(c)(II).

Page 18: TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8-29-17 · 16 See, e.g., South Platte River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-65-101; Rio Grande River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-66-101. 17 See Simpson v. Bijou

18

g. RecommendationsUncertaintiesinColoradolawrespectingtheabilitytouseappropriatedwaterforCompactsecuritypurposes,includingshepherdingthatwatertothestatelinefreefromdiminishmentbyotherappropriatorsaswellastransportingthatwatertoLakePowell,suggestthepotentialvalueoflegislativeattention.TheuniquenatureofsuchtransactionsandthegrowingneedtoproactivelyaddressthethreatofcurtailmentofwaterusesundertheColoradoRiverCompactwarrantspecialtreatment.WesuggestestablishingacategoryofwateruseidentifiedasCompactsecurity(specificallyincludingreducingtheriskofCompactcurtailment),statutorilyrecognizingsuchuseasbeneficial.ThisexpansionofthedefinitionofbeneficialusewithoutneedfordiversioncouldbeanadditiontoColo.Rev.Stat.§37-92-103(4).AssuggestedinSection2.eabove,theUpperColoradoRiverCommissionandthefourUpperDivisionstatescouldarriveatanagreementconcerningtheneedforCompactsecuritywatertoreducetheriskoffuturecurtailmenttomutuallyacceptablelevels.Thestatescouldreachagreementonamountsofwatertobeprovidedbyeach.TheCWCB,inconsultationwiththeStateEngineer,couldthendeterminehowtheCompactsecuritywaterwouldbeproducedandmanagedinColoradotoensurethatColorado’sCompactobligationscanbemet.TheStateEngineerwouldusethecompactrulepowertoprovidefortheadministrationofCompactsecuritywater.TransportingwatertoLakePowellforCompactsecurityshouldbeexemptedfromtheout-of-stateexportrestrictions,mostimportantlytheneedtocreditthedeliveryagainsttheentitlementofthedownstreamstateandthe$50peracrefootfee.90Thelegislativelanguageprovidingforthisexemptionshouldpreserveanypre-existingexportrestrictionsindecreesorlegislation.Thesetemporarychangeswoulduseanadministrativereviewprocess,suchasthewaterbankoraninterruptiblesupplyagreement.WeencourageconsiderationofbroadeningthejurisdictionofwaterbankstoallowformanagementofwaterapprovedforCompactsecurityandtoincludedirectflowrights.91WaterrightstemporarilychangedtoCompactsecurityusesshouldbeprotectedfromabandonmentandfromlossofconsumptiveusecredits.

3. INTERSTATEISSUESAssumingColoradocanestablishproceduresenablingtheuseandshepherdingofconservedorchangedwatertothestatelineforCompactsecuritypurposes,thereremainstheproblemofensuringthiswaterreachesLakePowell.WaterconservedorchangedinColoradoandintendedforstorageinLakePowellmustpassthroughUtahwithoutbeing

90Colo.Rev.Stat.§§37-81-103,-104.91SeeColorado’sWaterPlan,Ch.9.1at9-6;CastleandMacDonnell,supranote78.

Page 19: TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8-29-17 · 16 See, e.g., South Platte River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-65-101; Rio Grande River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-66-101. 17 See Simpson v. Bijou

19

divertedandconsumedbywaterusersthere.Dependingonthelocationoftheexistingwateruse,theCompactsecuritywatermayalsoneedtopassfirstthroughNewMexicoorWyoming.Coloradowouldnotwanttoprovideadditionalwateratthestateline,likelyatconsiderablecost,onlytoseeitdivertedbyout-of-stateappropriators.ItisclearthateachstatealongthepathtoLakePowellmustbeable,undersomeauthorityordirective,tointernallyshepherdwaterdesignatedforLakePowellpasttheheadgatesofpotentialwaterusersasanunderpinningforanUpperBasin-widesystemwaterprogram.ItisourunderstandingthatwaterofficialsintheotherUpperDivisionstatescurrentlydonotbelievethattheyhavethisauthoritywithinstatelaw,orattheleast,theirauthorityisunclear.92ItisineveryUpperDivisionstate’sinteresttofacilitatetheshepherdingofsystemwatertoLakePowell,asincreasingelevationsintheLakebenefiteachstateintheUpperDivision.TheUpperColoradoRiverCommission(UCRC)maybeabletosupportandfacilitatetheabilityofthewaterofficialsintheUpperDivisionstatestoshepherdCompactsecuritywatertoLakePowell.TherelevantpowersandauthoritiesoftheUCRCaresetforthinthe1948UpperColoradoRiverCompact,93andarediscussedindetailbelow.The1948CompactisbestknownforallocatingtotheUpperDivisionStatesofColorado,NewMexico,Utah,andWyomingtheirpercentageentitlementstotheUpperBasinapportionmentofColoradoRiverwater.Italsoaddresses,however,theanticipatedacquisitionofwaterrightsandconstructionofstoragereservoirs“forthepurposeofdiverting,conveying,storing,regulatingandreleasingwatertosatisfytheprovisionsoftheColoradoRiverCompactrelatingtotheobligationoftheStatesoftheUpperDivisiontomakedeliveriesofwateratLeeFerry.”94TheUpperColoradoRiverCompactestablishedtheUCRCasan“interstateadministrativeagency”withonecommissionerforeachofthefourUpperDivisionstatesandonefederalrepresentative.95TheUCRCischargedwithgatheringcertaininformation,includingthequantityofwaterusedannuallyintheUpperBasinandineachstate.96Ineventofacurtailment,theUCRCistodeterminetheamountofwatereachstateisresponsibleforprovidingatLeeFerry.97TheUpperColoradoRiverCompactwasnegotiatedinexpectationoflarge-scalefederalwaterdevelopmentintheUpperBasin.98TheBureauofReclamationproposedconstruction

92See,however,UtahCode§§73-2-29,73-3-20(1).93UpperColoradoRiverCompact,Colo.Rev.Stat.§37-62-101.94Id.,Art.IX(a).95Id.,Art.VIII(a).96Id.,Art.VIII(d)(5)–(10).97Id.,Art.VIII(d)(8),Art.IV.98TheBureauofReclamationlaidouttheblueprintforthiscomprehensivedevelopmentinits1946report:TheColoradoRiver:ANaturalMenacebecomesaNationalResource:AComprehensiveReportontheDevelopmentoftheWaterResourcesoftheColoradoRiverBasinforIrrigation,PowerProduction,andOtherBeneficialUses

Page 20: TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8-29-17 · 16 See, e.g., South Platte River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-65-101; Rio Grande River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-66-101. 17 See Simpson v. Bijou

20

oflargewaterstorageprojectsonthemainColoradoRiveratGlenCanyonandonmajortributariesincludingtheGreen,Gunnison,andSanJuanRivers.Inadditiontherewereproposalsforreservoirsthatwouldbeconstructedandstorewaterinonestateforuseinanother.ArticleIX(a)oftheUpperColoradoRiverCompactprovides:

NoStateshalldenytherightoftheUnitedStatesofAmericaand,subjecttotheconditionshereinaftercontained,noStateshalldenytherightofanothersignatoryState,anyperson,orentityofanysignatoryStatetoacquirerightstotheuseofwater,ortoconstructorparticipateintheconstructionanduseofdiversionworksandstoragereservoirswithappurtenantworks,canalsandconduitsinoneStateforthepurposeofdiverting,conveying,storing,regulatingandreleasingwatertosatisfytheprovisionsoftheColoradoRiverCompactrelatingtotheobligationoftheStatesoftheUpperDivisiontomakedeliveriesofwateratLeeFerry,orforthepurposeofdiverting,conveying,storingorregulatingwaterinanuppersignatoryStateforconsumptiveuseinalowersignatoryState,whensuchuseiswithintheapportionmenttosuchlowerStatemadebythisCompact.99

OfparticularconcernatthetimeofnegotiationandapprovaloftheUpperColoradoRiverCompactwasthestatuteinColoradoprohibitingtheexportofwaterappropriatedinColoradoforuseinanotherstate.100ArticleIXensuredthatColorado(oranyotherUpperDivisionstate)wouldnotapplysuchastatutetopreventout-of-statetransportofwaterstoredinColorado,eitherforconsumptiveuseinanotherstateorforusetomeettheUpperBasin’sresponsibilitiestotheLowerBasinandMexicopursuanttothe1922ColoradoRiverCompact.ArticleIX(c)oftheUpperColoradoRiverCompactfurtherprovides:

ShouldanyfacilitybeconstructedinasignatoryStatebyandforthebenefitofanothersignatoryStateorStatesorthewaterusersthereof,asaboveprovided,theconstruction,repair,replacement,maintenanceandoperationofsuchfacilityshallbesubjecttothelawsoftheStateinwhichthefacilityislocated,exceptthat,inthecaseofareservoirconstructedinoneStateforthebenefitofanotherStateorStates,thewateradministrationofficialsoftheStateinwhichthefacilityislocatedshallpermitthestorageandreleaseofanywaterwhich,asdeterminedbyfindingsofthe

inArizona,California,Colorado,Nevada,NewMexico,Utah,andWyoming,March1946,availableathttp://www.riversimulator.org/Resources/USBR/Menace.pdf.AnecessaryprerequisiteforthisdevelopmentwasfortheUpperDivisionstatestoapportionsharesoftheUpperBasin’sallocationunderthe1922ColoradoRiverCompacttoeachstate.CongressauthorizedthefirstsubstantialroundofsuchdevelopmentintheColoradoRiverStorageProjectActof1956.99UpperColoradoRiverCompact,Art.IX(a).100TheUpperColoradoRiverBasinCompact,HearingsbeforeSubcommitteeonIrrigationandReclamationoftheCommitteeonPublicLands,U.S.HouseofRepresentatives,81stCongress,1stSession,at88(“ItwillberecalledthatColoradohasastatuteforbiddingdiversionsinthisStateforuseinanotherState”).Thisisanapparentreferencetothepredecessorofthecurrentout-of-stateexportstatutediscussedinSection2.csupra.

Page 21: TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8-29-17 · 16 See, e.g., South Platte River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-65-101; Rio Grande River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-66-101. 17 See Simpson v. Bijou

21

Commission,fallswithintheapportionmentoftheStateorStatesforwhosebenefitthefacilityisconstructed.InthecaseofaregulatingreservoirforthejointbenefitofallStatesinmakingLeeFerrydeliveries,thewateradministrationofficialsoftheStateinwhichthefacilityislocated,inpermittingthestorageandreleaseofwater,shallcomplywiththefindingsandordersoftheCommission.”101

Thisprovisionensuresthatthewaterlawsandotherlawsofthestateinwhichsuchareservoirislocatedwillgenerallyprevail,exceptthatstatewateradministrationofficialsmustallowstorageandreleaseofwaterdeterminedbytheUCRCtobewithintheapportionmentoftheotherstatethatconstructedthereservoir.If,however,thefacilityisa“regulatingreservoirforthejointbenefitofallStatesinmakingLeeFerrydeliveries,”wateradministrationofficialsmustcomplywith“findingsandorders”oftheUCRC.Itisnotclearwhichfindingsandordersarereferredtohere.102StrictlyonthefaceofthefinalsentenceofArticleIX(c),itispossibletoconcludetheUCRChasauthoritytomakefindingsandtoorderstatewaterofficialsinstatesinwhichtherearejointbenefitfacilities(thosestoringwaterfordeliverytoLeeFerry,e.g.,LakePowell)toallowthestorageandreleaseofwaterinthosefacilities.ThisauthoritymayallowtheUCRCtomaketheappropriatefindingsand,forexample,orderUtahtoshepherdCompactsecuritywaterintendedforLakePowelltothatdestinationwithoutinterference.Thisinterpretation,althoughnotaddressedinlegislativehistoryorcontemporaneousUCRCminutes,isparticularlycompellingforsituationsinwhichcurtailmenthasbeenorderedtoachievecompliancewiththe1922Compact.ItislessclearwhethertheUCRCisauthorizedtomakefindingsthatadditionalCompactsecuritywaterisneededtoavoidcurtailmentofusesintheUpperBasin,althoughtheprovisionofthe1922CompactthattheUpperDivisionstates“willnotcause”adropinflowsbelowthe75/10obligationprovidespersuasivesupportforsuchaproactiveapproach.Havingmadesuchafinding,theUCRCmightbeabletorequiretheshepherdingofsuchwaterpasttheheadgatesofappropriatorsasnecessarytomoveittoLakePowell.103Alternatively,becausetheUpperDivisionstatesareboundby

101UpperColoradoRiverCompact,Art.IX(c).102TheUCRCisauthorizedtomakethefollowingfindings:ThecapacityofreservoirsconstructedtoprovidewatertomeettheLeeFerryobligation.Art.V(b)(1).Thecapacityofreservoirsbuilttoprovidewaterforuseinanotherstate.Art.V(b)(2).ThequantityofwaterusedeachyearintheUpperBasinandineachState.Art.VIII(d)(6)ThequantityofwaterdeliveriesatLeeFerryduringeachwateryear.Art.VIII(d)(7)Theneedforandextentofcurtailmentofuserequiredtocomplywiththe1922Compact.Art.VIII(d)(8).ThequantityofreservoirlossesandthesharechargeabletoeachState.Art.VIII(d)(9).TheonlyspecificreferencetoanorderfromtheUCRC,asidefromthisreferenceinArticleIX(c),istoenableuseofaportionofareservoirconstructedforstorageanddeliveryofwatertoLeeFerrytoinsteadbeusedforconsumptiveuse.ArticleV(c).Inaddition,“FindingsoffactmadebytheCommissionshallnotbeconclusiveinanycourt,orbeforeanyagencyortribunal,butshallconstituteprimafacieevidenceofthefactsfound.”ArticleVIII(g).103ArticleIX(a)providesfurthersupport(“…forthepurposeofdiverting,conveying,storing,regulatingandreleasingwatertosatisfytheprovisionsoftheColoradoRiverCompactrelatingtotheobligationoftheStatesoftheUpperDivisiontomakedeliveriesofwateratLeeFerry.”)

Page 22: TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8-29-17 · 16 See, e.g., South Platte River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-65-101; Rio Grande River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-66-101. 17 See Simpson v. Bijou

22

theUpperColoradoRiverCompact,theUCRC’sfindingsthatCompactsecuritywaterisneededcouldthentriggereffortsbyeachstatetodeterminehowtoproducetherequiredamountofwaterandmanageitappropriately.WhatevertheextentoftheUCRC’sauthoritytorequireorinstigateshepherding,itwouldbebolsteredbyanagreementamongtheUpperDivisionstatesandtheUCRC,acknowledgingsuchauthorityandsupportingafindingbytheUCRCinappropriatecircumstances,andafterconsultationwiththestates,thatCompactsecuritywaterisnecessarytocomplywiththe1922Compact.InourviewitwouldbedesirableforthefourstatestorequestafindingfromtheUCRCoftheneedforCompactsecuritywater,supportedbyanagreementamongthestatesrespectingamountsofwatertobeprovidedbyeachstateandthetimingwithinwhichsuchwateristobeprovided.Inaddition,theagreementwouldincludeacommitmentbyeachstatetoensurethatCompactsecuritycanbemadeavailableunderstatelawandultimatelydeliveredtoLakePowell.Withthisagreementinplace,theindividualstateagencieswouldbeempoweredtodeterminehowbesttoimplementtheCompactsecurityrequirementsintheirstatesusingtheirexistingauthoritiesandtoexaminewhetheradditionalauthoritiesareneeded.Aninterstateagreementaddressingtheseissueswouldbeprudentinanyevent.

4. LAKEPOWELLISSUESThemanagementofCompactsecuritywateronceitreachesLakePowellpresentsstillanothersetofchallenges.ThiswaterisintendedtobolsterstoragelevelsandavoidshortagesofflowsatLeeFerrythatwouldrequirecurtailmentofwaterusesinColoradoandotherUpperDivisionstates.If,however,thiswaterissimplyincludedinthestoragevolumeandlevelsusedtodeterminereleasestotheLowerBasinandLakeMead,asexplainedbelow,itmayresultinexcessreleases—defeatingthepurposeforwhichthewaterwasprovided.WeprovideanoverviewofLakePowelloperationsandthendiscussoptionsforensuringthatCompactsecuritywaterservesitsintendedpurpose.

a. LakePowellOperations.

Section602(a)ofthe1968ColoradoRiverBasinProjectAct104directstheSecretaryoftheInteriortodevelopcriteriaforthecoordinatedlong-rangeoperationofLakePowellandotherUpperBasinreservoirs.ThesecriteriaaretoprovideforannualreleasesfromLakePowellsufficientto:(1)supplyone-halfofthe“deficiency”ofdeliveriestoMexico;(2)complywiththe75/10obligation;and(3)anyadditionalwaternotrequiredtoensurethedeliveryofthefirsttwoamountswithoutimpairmentofannualconsumptiveusesintheUpperBasin.105104Pub.Law90-537,82Stat.900,§602(a).105Id.

Page 23: TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8-29-17 · 16 See, e.g., South Platte River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-65-101; Rio Grande River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-66-101. 17 See Simpson v. Bijou

23

TheLongRangeOperatingCriteria(LROC)106addressthisrequirementofSection602(a)andprovidethebasisfordetermininghowmuchwatercanberetainedinLakePowelleveryyear.TheLROCrequirereviewofhistoricalandprojectedfuturewaterconditionstoidentifyanamountofwaterthatshouldberetainedinstorageinLakePowelltoensuretheabilitytosatisfytheLeeFerryrequirementwhileallowingtheUpperDivisionstatestousetheircompactentitlements.107WaternotrequiredtoberetainedinstoragetomeetthesecriteriaisavailableforreleasetotheLowerBasin.108LakePowelloperationsandtheimplementationofSection602(a)arecurrentlycontrolledbythe2007InterimGuidelines,109whichdeterminereleasesfromGlenCanyonDambasedonrelativereservoirlevelsinLakePowellandLakeMead.AllwaterstoredinLakePowellisincludedindeterminingthereservoirelevationlevelforthepurposeofdeterminingtheoperationalproceduresthatwillbefollowed.110UndertheInterimGuidelines,elevationlevelsinLakePowellaredividedinto“tiers”thatdetermineactualoperationsandreleases.111ReleasesofmorethantheminimumamountnecessarytomeetlegalrequirementsmaybeorderedtobalanceorequalizethecontentsinLakePowellandLakeMeadwhenLakePowelllevelsarerelativelyhighandLakeMeadlevelsarerelativelylow.112

b. ConsiderationsforManagingCompactSecurityWater.TheprimarypurposeforcreatingCompactsecuritywaterandshepherdingittoLakePowellistovoluntarilyreducetheriskthatstoragelevelsinLakePowellbecomecriticallylow–inessence,abankdepositthatcanbedrawnuponinadversecircumstances.ThehydroelectricpowerturbinesinGlenCanyonDamnolongerfunctionbelowelevation3490feet(abovesealevel),andtheabilitytodeliversufficientwatertomeetthe75/10obligationisthreatened.Compactsecuritywaterandassociatedshepherdingactionswouldthusbeaimedatkeepingstorageelevationsatleastabove3490feetorahigherelevationdesignedtoensuresafeoperatingconditionsandproductiveandcontinuoushydropowergenerationandrevenuesoverthelongterm.If,however,thiswaterisincludedinthequantitiesand106CriteriaforCoordinatedLong-RangeOperationofColoradoRiverReservoirsPursuanttotheColoradoRiverBasinProjectActofSeptember30,1966(Pub.L.90-537),modifiedMarch21,2005,70Fed.Reg.15873.107Id.Art.II.108Id.109RecordofDecision,ColoradoRiverInterimGuidelinesforLowerBasinShortagesandCoordinatedOperationsforLakePowellandLakeMead,December2007(“InterimGuidelines”),SectionsX.A,XI.G.SectionXI.G.6oftheInterimGuidelinesprovidesforthecoordinatedoperationsofMeadandPowell,primarilyintendedtobalanceandequalizestorageinthesetworeservoirs.110Foroperationalpurposes,elevationlevelsprojectedforJanuary1areused.DecisionsaboutoperationofGlenCanyonDamarecontinuouslyexaminedinwhatarecalled“24-month”studies,updatedmonthly.See24MonthStudy,U.S.BureauofReclamation,https://www.usbr.gov/uc/water/crsp/studies/.Actualoperationsarebasedonthe“annualoperatingplan.”SeeAnnualOperatingPlans,U.S.BureauofReclamation,https://www.usbr.gov/uc/water/rsvrs/ops/aop/.111SeeLakePowellOperations,EqualizationandtheInterimGuidelines,U.S.BureauofReclamation,https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/crsp/gc/Eq-IntGuide/Eq-IntGuidelines-Fact.pdf.112InterimGuidelines,SectionXI.G.6

Page 24: TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8-29-17 · 16 See, e.g., South Platte River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-65-101; Rio Grande River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-66-101. 17 See Simpson v. Bijou

24

elevationsusedtodeterminereleasestotheLowerBasin,thebenefitsoftheCompactsecuritywatercouldpotentiallybeundermined.113TheUpperDivisionstates,inconsultationwithReclamationandtheLowerDivisionstates,willneedtoconsiderhowCompactsecuritywaterwouldbemanagedinLakePowell.Oneoptionwouldbetoplaceitinaseparate“account,”withsomesimilaritiestothemannerinwhich“intentionallycreatedsurplus”114wateristreatedinLakeMeadasseparatefromtheannualdeliveriesfromtheUpperBasin.LikeIntentionallyCreatedSurplus(ICS),CompactsecuritywaterinLakePowellshouldbecarriedoverandavailableforuseinsubsequentyearsandassessedforevaporation,eitherafixedpercentageorasaproportionofLakePowell’soverallevaporation.LikeICS,thewaterbankwouldbeevacuatedifLakePowell’snaturalinflowneededthespace.Detailedaccountingwouldbemaintained.AlthoughICSiscountedindeterminingtheelevationlevelinLakeMeadforthepurposeofbalancingandequalizationreleasesandfordeterminingshortages,115itiscriticalthatCompactsecuritywaterinLakePowellnotbecountedforthesepurposes.TogeneratethefundingrequiredtoobtainvoluntaryconservationofCompactsecuritywater,thefunders(whetherstate,federal,orprivate)willneedtobeassuredthatthewaterconservedwillbebankedinLakePowellandprovidetheintendedbenefittotheUpperBasin.SimilartothebankingofwaterundergroundintheLowerBasin,aLakePowellCompactsecuritybankprovidesflexibilitytogetthroughdryperiodswithouttremendouseconomicdisruption.IftheadditionofCompactsecuritywatertriggersadditionalreleasesfromLakePowell,thebankaccountisnotsecureanddepositsintoitaremuchlesslikely.AlthoughICSiscountedinLakeMead’selevationforthepurposeofdeterminingbalancingreleases,doingsodoesnotthreatentheexistenceoftheICSasitwouldforCompactsecuritywaterinLakePowellifsubjecttobalancingorequalization.Indeed,ithasthebenefitofkeepingstorageelevationshigherthantheywouldotherwisebe,thushelpingtoavoidashortagedeclaration.WhiletherearerestrictionsonthedeliveryofICStocontractorsbasedonhydrologicconditions,itisnotsubjecttoreleasetoothers.ItremainsinLakeMeaduntilcalledforbyitscreator.Inaddition,whileICSprovidescarryoverflexibilitytoLowerBasincontractors,theCompactandInterimGuidelinesassurethemthatUpperBasindeliverieswillcontinueregardlessofhydrology.Incontrast,UpperBasinwaterusersareexposedtothefullvolatilityofnature,potentiallyrequiringcurtailmentoflong-establishedusestomeetCompactrequirements.HavingaCompactsecuritybankinLakePowellcanmitigatethisseriousrisk,ifitisreliablytherewhenneeded.

113EqualizationandbalancingreleasesarebasedontheprojectedrelativeelevationsofLakePowellandLakeMeadonJanuary1.AdditionalCompactsecuritywaterinLakePowellwouldincreaseelevationsinPowell,possiblytriggeringadditionalreleases.InterimGuidelines,SectionXI.G.6.114ThiscategoryofwaterisauthorizedintheInterimGuidelines,SectionXI.G.3.115UndertheInterimGuidelines,theSecretaryistodeclareashortageconditionifstoragelevelsinLakeMeadareprojectedtobeatorbelowelevation1075onJanuary1ofanyyear.InterimGuidelines,Section2(d)(1)(a).SuchadeclarationmeansreductionsindeliveriesofwatertoArizonaandNevada.

Page 25: TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8-29-17 · 16 See, e.g., South Platte River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-65-101; Rio Grande River Compact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-66-101. 17 See Simpson v. Bijou

25

RulesconcerningthetreatmentofCompactsecuritywaterinLakePowellwouldneedtobeadoptedthroughagreementamongalloftheColoradoRiverBasinstatesandtheDepartmentoftheInterior.TheUpperDivisionstateswillneedtoconsiderwhetherCompactsecuritywaterderivingfromeachstatewouldbemaintainedinseparateaccountsor,alternatively,whetherallCompactsecuritywaterwouldbemaintainedinajointaccount,benefitingtheentiresystem.TherewilllikelybelimitsontheoverallamountofCompactsecuritywaterthatcouldresideinLakePowellatanygiventime,determinationofevaporationcharges,andpossiblyseepageandsystemassessments.116ItshouldberecognizedthatresolutionoftheseinterstateissuesconcerningthetreatmentofCompactsecuritywaterinLakePowellwillbeparticularlydifficult,contentious,andtime-consuming.

5. CONCLUSION

StoringadditionalwaterinLakePowellwhendecliningstoragelevelsthreatencurtailmentmakesgoodsense.Increaseduncertaintyaboutfuturehydrologyandheightenedvolatilityinsuppliesaccentuatetheprudenceofsuchaprogram.Asapracticalmatter,theabilitytoshepherdthisCompactsecuritywaterinColoradoandotherstatesisessentialtoachievingtheintendedresult.Thelegalandpolicyissuesassociatedwithmakingthiswateravailable,movingittoLakePowell,andmanagingitsuseonceinstorageareformidable.WorkwillneedtobedonewithineachoftheUpperDivisionstatestoensurethestate’swaterlawwillsupportthisuseofwaterandthatthewatercanbeadministeredin-statetoavoidconsumptionbyotherwaterusers.TheUpperDivisionstateswillneedtoworktogethertodecidethebestmechanismforensuringthatwatercomingfromupstreamstatescanpassthroughdownstreamstatesandreachLakePowellundiminishedexceptfortransitlosses.Theywillneedtoreachagreementonmethodstomeasureandaccountforthiswater.TheUpperColoradoRiverCommissioncouldservetofacilitatethedevelopmentandtransportofCompactsecuritywaterpursuanttoanagreementamongtheUCRCandtheUpperDivisionstates.ThesevenbasinstatesandtheU.S.willneedtoagreeonthemanagementofthewateronceitreachesLakePowell.GiventheobviousbenefitsofenablingsucheffortsandthecurrentfocusonDroughtContingencyPlanning,thesediscussionsshouldbeginsoon.ThefactthatCompactsecuritywaterandshepherdinginter-relatewithmultipleotherissuesdoesnotmeanthatadiscussionoftheseissuesshouldbepostponed.Rather,itsuggeststhattheseinterdependentissuesmustbeworkedoncontemporaneously.Coloradowaterofficials,waterusers,andotherinterestedpartiescanandshouldbegintheinternalstatediscussionsconcerningshepherding,inconjunctionwithinstigatingthebroaderconversationsamongtheUpperDivisionstates,theUCRC,theappropriatefederalagencies,andtheLowerDivisionstates.116SeeU.S.BureauofReclamation,ColoradoRiverBasinStudy,TechnicalReportGandAppendixG2.TherearecomplexlegalandpolicyissuesassociatedwithaddingwatertoLakePowellandestablishingseparateaccountsforthiswater.Thispaperdoesnotattempttoaddressthoseissuesinthedetailrequiredforathoroughanalysis.


Colo MunitionGuide 0 2

Colo MunitionGuide 0 2

Pub. Serv. Co. of Colo. v. Dept. of Rev., 10CA1026 (Colo. App. 2011)

Pub. Serv. Co. of Colo. v. Dept. of Rev., 10CA1026 (Colo. App. 2011)

COLORADO SUPREME COURT - TownNews · 2020. 5. 5. · COLORADO SUPREME COURT 2 East 14th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Application for Review Under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-1-113(3) Denver

COLORADO SUPREME COURT - TownNews · 2020. 5. 5. · COLORADO SUPREME COURT 2 East 14th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Application for Review Under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-1-113(3) Denver

Colo eBook Final3

Colo eBook Final3

Manchester united fc & colo colo sc

Manchester united fc & colo colo sc

FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF … · 3 indorsement did not identify a specific person “to whom it ma[de] the instrument payable.” Colo. Rev. Stat.

FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF … · 3 indorsement did not identify a specific person “to whom it ma[de] the instrument payable.” Colo. Rev. Stat.

Colo rectal carcinoma

Colo rectal carcinoma

colo - mc-ryokka.commc-ryokka.com/shosai/colo/colo.pdf · Title: colo Created Date: 1/16/2020 2:58:22 PM

colo - mc-ryokka.commc-ryokka.com/shosai/colo/colo.pdf · Title: colo Created Date: 1/16/2020 2:58:22 PM

...public accommodation within the meaning of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-601(1), Eagleside Elementary School. The Respondent, however, contends that the Division lacks jurisdiction

...public accommodation within the meaning of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-601(1), Eagleside Elementary School. The Respondent, however, contends that the Division lacks jurisdiction

Colo u roses

Colo u roses

Regulatory Agenda...The Regulatory Agenda also includes, pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. 24-4-103.3, rules to be reviewed as part of the Department’s “Regulatory Efficiencies Reviews”

Regulatory Agenda...The Regulatory Agenda also includes, pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. 24-4-103.3, rules to be reviewed as part of the Department’s “Regulatory Efficiencies Reviews”

Colo. Kids 9.13.16 - NIEonline

Colo. Kids 9.13.16 - NIEonline

Colo book of jazz

Colo book of jazz

lgbtbar.orglgbtbar.org/annual/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2015/...public accommodation within the meaning of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-6010), Eagleside Elementary School. The Respondent,

lgbtbar.orglgbtbar.org/annual/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2015/...public accommodation within the meaning of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-6010), Eagleside Elementary School. The Respondent,

FLUEVOG COLO(U)RING SHEETS · fluevog colo(u)ring sheets kid and adult friendly. fluevog colo(u)ring sheets kid and adult friendly. fluevog colo(u)ring sheets kid and adult friendly.

FLUEVOG COLO(U)RING SHEETS · fluevog colo(u)ring sheets kid and adult friendly. fluevog colo(u)ring sheets kid and adult friendly. fluevog colo(u)ring sheets kid and adult friendly.

REVISTA COLO COLO EL ETERNO CAMPEON 2DA EDICION

REVISTA COLO COLO EL ETERNO CAMPEON 2DA EDICION

REVISTA COLO COLO EL ETERNO CAMPEON 3RA EDICION

REVISTA COLO COLO EL ETERNO CAMPEON 3RA EDICION

Colo rectal bleeding

Colo rectal bleeding

Sketchbook colo

Sketchbook colo

The Art Of Colo Colo

The Art Of Colo Colo